SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Dental Research / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of the demographic profile of patients with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A retrospective clinical study

Fatih DEMİRCİ
Abdulsamet TANIK
Pages
165–171
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A significant difference was found among age groups with laser-sintered metal-ceramics (LSMC) and all-ceramics (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: In this study, the aim is to evaluate the demographic profile as well as clinical aspects of patients who received implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) between 2016 and 2019 years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methodology: Among 150 patients with implant-supported FDPs, 120 contacted patients were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A significant difference was found among age groups with laser-sintered metal-ceramics (LSMC) and all-ceramics (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: In this study, the aim is to evaluate the demographic profile as well as clinical aspects of patients who received implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) between 2016 and 2019 years. Methodology: Among 150 patients with implant-supported FDPs, 120 contacted patients were included in the study. The patients were examined in terms of gender, age groups, edentulism, restoration type, implant location, implant survival rate, and abutment type by using the computer software. Data results were analyzed by descriptive statistical methods. Results: Three hundred and six dental implants were evaluated in a total of 120 patients, 55 men, and 65 women. The average age of the patients was 49.61 ± 11.84, and the most common dental implant application was in the 51–60 age group. Dental implants were frequently applied to the posterior mandible, and 31.9% of them were applied to patients in the 51– 60 age group. A 94.8% implant survival rate was observed. A significant difference was found among age groups with laser-sintered metal-ceramics (LSMC) and all-ceramics (p

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİRCİ, F., TANIK, A. (2022). Evaluation of the demographic profile of patients with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A retrospective clinical study. International Dental Research, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3, 165–171. https://ajindex.com/articles/539506

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Urvasızoğlu, Gelengül Gürbüz; Saruhan, Nesrin; Ataol, Mert. Evaluation Of Demographic And Clinical Features Of Dental Implant Applications. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni, 2016;26(3):394- 398
  2. Esposito M, Barausse C, Pistilli R, Sammartino G, Grandi G, Felice P. Short implants versus bone augmentation for placing longer implants in atrophic maxillae: One-year post-loading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015;8(3):257-68
  3. Yaltırık M and Alen P. All Aspects of Single Tooth Dental Implant Planning and Applications. Turkiye Klinikleri J Oral Maxillofac Surg-Special Topics 2015;1(2):27-32
  4. Carcuac O, Jansson L. Peri-implantitis in a specialist clinic of periodontology. Clinical features and risk indicators. Swed Dent J. 2010;34: 53–61
  5. Eltas A, Dundar S, Uzun IH, Malkoç MA. Assesement of Dental Implant Success and Patient Profile: A Retrospective Study. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni, 2013;23(1):1-8
  6. Spiekermann H, Jansen VK, Richter EJ. A 10-year follow-up study of IMZ and TPS implants in the edentulous mandible using bar-retained overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;10:231-43
  7. Mericske-Stern R, Steinlin Schaffner T, Marti P, Geering AH. Peri-implant mucosal aspects of ITI implants supporting overdentures. A five-year longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994;5(1):9-18. (Crossref
  8. Vehemente VA, Chuang SK, Daher S, Muftu A, Dodson TB. Risk factors affecting dental implant survival. J Oral Implantol. 2002;28(2):74-81. (Crossref
  9. Yildirim Guler, et al. Demographic evaluation of implant locations among 1000 adult patients in Turkey. Avicenna Journal of Dental Research 2018;10(1):22-27. (Crossref
  10. Tolstunov L. Implant zones of the jaws: implant location and related success rate. J Oral Implantol. 2007;33(4):211- 20. (Crossref
  11. Polat ME, Saruhan N, Gojayeva, G. The Demographic Evaluation of Dental Implant Patients. Journal of Biotechnology and Strategic Health Research, 2019;3(2):85- 90
  12. Rignon-Bret C, Wulfman C, Hadida A, Renouard F, Gourraud PA, Naveau A. Immediate Loading of Two Unsplinted Implants in Edentulous Patients with Mandibular Overdentures: A 10- year Retrospective Review of Patients from a Previously Conducted 1-year Cohort Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(1):169-178. (Crossref
  13. Jemt T, Lekholm U. Implant treatment in edentulous maxillae: a 5-year follow-up report on patients with different degrees of jaw resorption. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;